Ray
McGovern, een ex-CIA agent, die zoals je gerust kan stellen tot
inkeer kwam, schreef een artikel op Consortium News over het
‘Russische hack’ verhaal.

Volkomen
terecht stelt McGovern dat er na 2 jaar nog steeds geen schijn van
bewijs is voor Russische hack van het DNC, het comité dat zwaar op de
hand van Hillary Clinton was en dat er voor zorgde dat haar tegenkandidaat
Bernie Sanders de voorverkiezingen verloor…… Het DNC wist van
Julian Assange dat hij zou komen met uitgelekte documenten waaruit
e.e.a. zou blijken. Om Assange voor te zijn werd rap naar de Russen
gewezen als de dader die deze documenten middels een hack zou hebben
bemachtigd en deze Wikileaks zou hebben doen toekomen……..

Intussen
is uit en te na bewezen dat deze documenten door een lid van het DNC
zijn gelekt, waarschijnlijk uit frustratie over het meer dan smerige
spel van het DNC tijdens de democratische voorverkiezingen. Deze klokkenluider is naar grote waarschijnlijkheid
Seth Rich, die niet lang nadat de ellende begon werd vermoord tijdens
een ‘straatroof’ terwijl er niets van hem werd gestolen zelfs zijn
geld niet……..

Onterecht
merkt McGovern op dat dit hele hackverhaal niet meer terug komt in de
media, echter dat is onzin, zoals de al evenzeer niet bewezen
manipulaties door de Russen van de presidentsverkiezing regelmatig in de media worden genoemd, het enige verschil is dat men niet verder
spreekt over deze belachelijke beschuldiging, maar deze eenvoudig
aanhaalt als bewijs voor de smerige rol die Rusland zou hebben gespeeld en speelt…..
Ofwel: het demoniseren van Rusland op grond van leugens, terwijl de ware demon de VS zelf
is, de grootste terreurentiteit op onze aarde……… 

De NSA en de andere geheime diensten van de VS hebben een enorm scala aan mogelijkheden om de schuld voor bepaalde door de VS begane zaken op het internet, in de schoenen van een ander land kan schuiven en dat ook daadwerkelijk heeft gedaan, zie de Vault 7 en 8 documenten op Wikileaks……..

McGovern
heeft de zaak nog eens netjes op een rij gezet en dat werkt uiterst
verhelderend na een paar jaar middels leugens haat en angstzaaien tegen/voor de
Russen.

Still
Waiting for Evidence of a Russian Hack

June
7, 2018 at 8:14 pm

Written
by Ray
McGovern

More
than two years after the allegation of a Russian hack of the 2016
U.S. presidential election was first made, conclusive proof is still
lacking and may never be produced.

(CN Op-ed) — If
you are wondering why so little is heard these days of accusations
that Russia hacked into the U.S. election in 2016, it could be
because those charges could not withstand close scrutiny.
It could also be because special counsel Robert Mueller appears to
have never bothered to investigate what was once the central alleged
crime in Russia-gate as no one associated with WikiLeaks has ever
been questioned by his team.

Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity — including two “alumni”
who were former National Security Agency (NSA) technical directors — have
long since concluded that Julian Assange did not acquire what he
called the “emails related to Hillary Clinton” via a “hack”
by the Russians or anyone else. They found, rather, that he got them
from someone with physical access to Democratic National Committee (DNC) computers who copied the material onto an external storage device —
probably a thumb drive. In December 2016 VIPS explained this
in some detail in an open Memorandum to President Barack Obama.

On
January 18, 2017 President Obama admitted that
the “conclusions” of U.S. intelligence regarding how the alleged
Russian hacking got to WikiLeaks were “inconclusive.” Even the
vapid FBI/CIA/NSA “Intelligence Community Assessment of Russian
Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections” of January 6,
2017, which tried to blame Russian

President
Vladimir Putin for election interference, contained no
direct evidence of Russian involvement.  That did not prevent
the “handpicked” authors of that poor excuse for intelligence
analysis from expressing “high confidence” that Russian
intelligence “relayed material it acquired from the Democratic
National Committee … to WikiLeaks.” 

Handpicked
analysts, of course, say what they are handpicked to say.

Never
mind. The FBI/CIA/NSA “assessment” became bible truth for
partisans like Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), ranking member of the House
Intelligence Committee, who was among the first off the blocks to
blame Russia for interfering to help Trump.  It simply could not
have been that Hillary Clinton was quite capable of snatching defeat
out of victory all by herself.  No, it had to have been the
Russians.

Five
days into the Trump presidency, I had a chance to challenge Schiff
personally on the gaping disconnect between the Russians and
WikiLeaks. Schiff still “can’t share the evidence” with me …
or with anyone else, because it does not exist.

WikiLeaks

It
was on June 12, 2016, just six weeks before the Democratic National
Convention, that Assange announced the pending publication of “emails
related to Hillary Clinton,” throwing the Clinton campaign into
panic mode, since the emails would document strong bias in favor of
Clinton and successful attempts to sabotage the campaign of Bernie
Sanders. 

When
the emails were published on July 22, just three days before the
convention began, the campaign decided to create what I call a
Magnificent Diversion, drawing attention away from the substance of
the emails by blaming Russia for their release.

Clinton’s
PR chief Jennifer Palmieri later admitted that
she golf-carted around to various media outlets at the convention
with instructions “to get the press to focus on something even we
found difficult to process: the prospect that Russia had not only
hacked and stolen emails from the DNC, but that it had done so to
help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton.”  The diversion
worked like a charm.  Mainstream media kept shouting “The
Russians did it,” and gave little, if any, play to the DNC
skullduggery revealed in the emails themselves. And like Brer’ Fox,
Bernie didn’t say nothin’.

Meanwhile,
highly sophisticated technical experts, were hard at work fabricating
“forensic facts” to “prove” the Russians did it.  Here’s
how it played out:

June
12, 2016: Assange announces that WikiLeaks is about to
publish “emails related to Hillary Clinton.”

June
14, 2016: DNC contractor CrowdStrike, (with a dubious
professional record and multiple conflicts of interest) announces
that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there is
evidence it was injected by Russians.

June
15, 2016: “Guccifer 2.0” affirms the DNC statement;
claims responsibility for the “hack;” claims to be a WikiLeaks
source; and posts a document that the forensics show was
synthetically tainted with “Russian fingerprints.”

The
June 12, 14, & 15 timing was hardly coincidence. Rather, it was
the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything
WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to “show” that it
came from a Russian hack.

Enter
Independent Investigators

A
year ago independent cyber-investigators completed the kind of
forensic work that, for reasons best known to then-FBI Director James
Comey, neither he nor the “handpicked analysts” who wrote the
Jan. 6, 2017 assessment bothered to do.  The independent
investigators found verifiable evidence from metadata found in the
record of an alleged Russian hack of July 5, 2016 showing that the
“hack” that day of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by
Russia or anyone else.

Rather
it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a
thumb drive, for example) by an insider — the same process used
by the DNC insider/leaker before June 12, 2016 for an altogether
different purpose. (Once the metadata was found and the “fluid
dynamics” principle of physics applied, this was not difficult
to disprove the
validity of the claim that Russia was responsible.)

One
of these independent investigators publishing under the name of The
Forensicator on May 31 published new evidence that
the Guccifer 2.0 persona uploaded a document from the West Coast of
the United States, and not from Russia.

In
our July 24, 2017 Memorandum to President Donald Trump we stated,
“We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish
to ask the FBI.”

Our July
24 Memorandum continued: “Mr. President, the disclosure
described below may be related. Even if it is not, it is
something we think you should be made aware of in this general
connection. On March 7, 2017, WikiLeaks began to publish a trove
of original CIA documents that WikiLeaks labeled ‘Vault
7.’ WikiLeaks said it got the trove from a current or former
CIA contractor and described it as comparable in scale and
significance to the information Edward Snowden gave to reporters in
2013.

“No
one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of
Vault 7, which disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools
developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA’s Engineering
Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA
Directorate of Digital Innovation – a growth industry established
by John Brennan in 2015. [ (VIPSwarned President
Obama of some of the dangers of that basic CIA reorganization at the
time.]

Marbled

“Scarcely
imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and
make it race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying
through a TV – were described and duly reported in the New York
Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part 3
release on March 31 that exposed the “Marble Framework”
program apparently was judged too delicate to qualify as ‘news fit
to print’ and was kept out of the Times at
the time, and has never been mentioned since.

“The
Washington Post’s Ellen Nakashima, it seems, ‘did not get the
memo’ in time. Her March 31 article bore
the catching (and accurate) headline: ‘WikiLeaks’ latest release
of CIA cyber-tools could blow the cover on agency hacking
operations.’

“The
WikiLeaks release indicated that Marble was designed for flexible and
easy-to-use ‘obfuscation,’ and that Marble source code includes a
“de-obfuscator” to reverse CIA text obfuscation.

“More
important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In
her Washington
Post report,
Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point
made by WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to
conduct a ‘forensic attribution double game’ or false-flag
operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian,
Korean, Arabic and Farsi.”

A
few weeks later William Binney, a former NSA technical director,
and I commented on
Vault 7 Marble, and were able to get a shortened op-ed
version published in The
Baltimore Sun.

The
CIA’s reaction to the WikiLeaks disclosure of the Marble Framework
tool was neuralgic.

Then
Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange
and his associates “demons,” and insisting; “It’s time to
call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a non-state hostile
intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia.”

Our July
24 Memorandum continued:  “Mr. President, we do not know
if CIA’s Marble Framework, or tools like it, played some kind of
role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do
we know how candid the denizens of CIA’s Digital Innovation
Directorate have been with you and with Director Pompeo. These
are areas that might profit from early White House review.  [
President Trump then directed Pompeo to invite Binney, one of the
authors of the July 24, 2017 VIPS Memorandum to the President, to
discuss all this.  Binney and Pompeo spent an hour together at
CIA Headquarters on October 24, 2017, during which Binney briefed
Pompeo with his customary straightforwardness. ]

“We
also do not know if you have discussed cyber issues in any detail
with President Putin. In his interview with NBC’s Megyn Kelly
he seemed quite willing – perhaps even eager – to address issues
related to the kind of cyber tools revealed in the Vault 7
disclosures, if only to indicate he has been briefed on them. Putin
pointed out that today’s technology enables hacking to be ‘masked
and camouflaged to an extent that no one
can understand the origin’ [of the hack] … And, vice
versa, it is possible to set up any entity or any
individual that everyone will think that they are the exact
source of that attack.

“‘Hackers
may be anywhere,’ he said. ‘There may be hackers, by the way,
in the United States
who very craftily and professionally passed the buck
to Russia. Can’t you imagine such a scenario? … I can.’

New
attention has been drawn to these issues after I discussed them in a
widely published 16-minute interview last
Friday.

In
view of the highly politicized environment surrounding these issues,
I believe I must append here the same notice that VIPS felt compelled
to add to our key Memorandum of July 24, 2017:

“Full
Disclosure: Over recent decades the ethos of our intelligence
profession has eroded in the public mind to the point that
agenda-free analysis is deemed well nigh impossible. Thus, we
add this disclaimer, which applies to everything we in VIPS say and
do: We have no political agenda; our sole purpose is to spread truth
around and, when necessary, hold to account our former intelligence
colleagues.

“We
speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance
between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say
is purely coincidental.” The fact we find it is necessary to
include that reminder speaks volumes about these highly politicized
times.

Ray
McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years and co-founded Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

Op-ed
by Ray
McGovern /
Republished with permission / Consortium
News / Report
a typo